Star-forming Galaxies at High Redshift The feedback impact of energetic cosmic rays

Ellis OwenMullard Space Science Laboratory Dept. Space & Climate PhysicsUniversity College London

ellis.owen.12@ucl.ac.uk

CollaboratorsKinwah Wu (MSSL), Xiangyu Jin (McGill),Pooja Surajbali (MPIK), Noriko Kataoka (Kyoto SU),Idunn Jacobsen (MSSL), Suetyi Chan (Nanjing),Brian Yu (MSSL)

IPMU, Tokyo – July 2019

HST and ALMA image of MACS1149-JD1 (z=9.11) – NASA/ESA, Hashimoto+ 2018

Outline

• Star-forming galaxies in the Universe• Cosmic rays in star-forming galaxies• Particle propagation• Energy deposition and heating by particles and radiation• Implications for star-formation and feedback• Summary

2

Star-forming Galaxies in the Universe

Image of simulated Lyman-alpha emission around a high redshift group of protogalaxies – credit: Geach et al.

Local Starbursts

4

Arp 220

NASA/ESA 2008 ESO 2010

NGC 253

NASA/ESA 2006

RSF

RSN

M 82

0.1 yr�1 4 yr�1 0.1 yr�1

See e.g. SN Rates: Fenech+2010, Lenc & Tingay 2006, Lonsdale+2006; SF Rate: Varenius+2016, Schreiber+2003, Bolatto+2013

⇠ 220 M� yr�1 ⇠ 10 M� yr�1⇠ 10 M� yr�1

High-redshift starbursts (z~6+)

• Low mass, high SF rates– 10$M⨀

– 10s − 100sM⨀yr,-

– SF efficiencies ~ tens of %

• Some known to host Lyman-⍺haloes

– Multi-phase CGM…

• Simulation work suggests possibility of filamentary inflows of gas (cf. works by Keres, Dekel, Birnboim…)

EGSY8p7MACS1149-JD1

GN-z11 EGS-zs8-1

MACS1149-JD1 (HST/ALMA) – NASA/ESA, Hashimoto+ 2018EGSY8p7 (Hubble/Spitzer) – NASA, Labbe+ 2015

GN-z11 (HST) – NASA, Oesch+ 2015 EGSY-zs8-1(Hubble/Spitzer) – NASA/ESA, Oesch & Momcheva 2015

5

The high-redshift CGM environment

6Figure based on Tumlinson+2017

Outflows

Cold inflows(operate mainly at high-redshift)

Birnboim + Dekel 2003; Keres+2005; Dekel 2009

ISM

Cosmic rays in star-forming galaxies

Image credit: Crab Nebula, NASA, ESA 2005

Knee

Knee

Ankle

Cosmic rays in the Milky Way

8Adapted from Gaisser 2007

Starbursts as cosmic ray factories

• Hillas criterion

• Cosmic rays sources– Galactic (internal) in orange

9

Emax

qBR

Fig. adapted from Owen 2019 (PhD thesis)See also Kotera & Olinto 2011; Hillas 1984

10-10

10-5

100

105

1010

1015

105 1010 1015 1020 1025

rsys/cm

!/G

Neutron stars

White dwarfs

AGN

GRBs

AGN jets

ISM hot spots

IGM shocksSupernova remnants

Cosmic ray acceleration

10

• Shocks, e.g. SNR– First order Fermi acceleration

• Each pass through the shock increases the energy

• After n crossings, energy is E = E0h⇠in

Magnetic shock

Downstream Upstream

Cosmic ray acceleration

11

• Some particles will escape after a crossing – take P as probability of remain, so number remaining after each crossing

• Eliminate n and rearrange

• Result is CRs accelerated to high energies, ~GeV and above, following a power-law

N = N0Pn

N

N0=

✓E

E0

◆ log Plogh⇠i

=

✓E

E0

◆��

� ⇡ 2.1

Cosmic ray interactions

12

+ pion multiplicities at higher energies

p+ � ! p+ e+ + e� .

p+ � ! �+ !(p+ ⇡0 ! p+ 2�

n+ ⇡+ ! n+ µ+ + ⌫µ

n+ e+ + ⌫e + ⌫̄µ + ⌫µ

Photopion Interaction

with radiation fields (p𝛄)

Photopair Interaction

Interaction by particles scattering off ambient photons (starlight, CMB…)

p+ p !

8>>>>>><

>>>>>>:

p+�+ !

8><

>:

p+ p+ ⇡0

p+ p+ ⇡+

p+ n+ ⇡+

n+�++ !(n+ p+ ⇡+

n+ n+ 2(⇡+)

Cosmic ray interactions

13

+ pion multiplicities at higher energies

Neutron and photon interactions produce pions

Pions decay to photons, muons, neutrinos, electrons, positrons,

antineutrinosn+ � ! ⇡’s ⇡ ! �, µ, e, ⌫ . . .

with matter (pp)

Cosmic ray interactions

14

CMB & cosmological

losses

Interactions with stellar radiation

fields

Interactions with typical ISM density fields Adapted from Owen+ 2018 (1808.07837)

Particle propagation

Image credit: M25 Motorway, Carillon UK Transport

The transport equation (hadrons)

16

• The transport equation for protons (cooling/momentum diffusion assumed negligible)

– Diffusion dominated, i.e. 𝒗 = 0

– Advection dominated, i.e. 𝐷 𝐸, 𝐱 = 0 10-10

10-5

100

105

1010

1015

105 1010 1015 1020 1025

rsys/cm

!/G

Neutron stars

White dwarfs

AGN

GRBs

AGN jets

ISM hot spots

IGM shocksSupernova remnants

@n

@t= r · [D(E,x)rn] +

@

@E[b(E, r)n]�r · [vn] +Q(E,x)� S(E,x)

The diffusion zone (‘stationary’ ISM)

17M82 in H⍺ (WIYN) and optical (HST)

Smith+ 2005

@n

@t= r · [D(E,x)rn] +

@

@E[b(E, r)n]�r · [vn] +Q(E,x)� S(E,x)

The diffusion zone (‘stationary’ ISM)

• Approximate ISM as a sphere• Absorption depends on

– density of CRs– density of ISM gas – interaction cross section (dominated by pp process)

• CR injection as a BC (for now) – restate problem as individual linearly independent events (t’ since inj. event)

18

@n

@t=

1

r2@

@r

r2D(E, r)

@n

@r

�� cn �̂p⇡ nISM

@n

@t= r · [D(E,x)rn] +

@

@E[b(E, r)n]�r · [vn] +Q(E,x)� S(E,x)

n =

n0

[4⇡D(E, r0)t0]3/2exp

(�Z t0

0cdt �̂p⇡ nISM

)exp

⇢� r02

4D(E, r0)t0

�

The diffusion zone (‘stationary’ ISM)

19

• Solution for steady-state from continuous injection from single source (time integral)

• Numerically convolve with a source ensemble (MC distribution)– Follows ISM gas profile

x

x

xx

x x

xx

xx

x x

xxx

x

x

xx

x

x

x

x

The diffusion zone (‘stationary’ ISM)

20

10�1 100 101 102

r/kpc

10�27

10�26

10�25

10�24

10�23

10�22

10�21

E·d

NdE

dV/e

rg·c

m�

3 eV

�1

• Solution for steady-state from continuous injection from single source (time integral)

• Numerically convolve with a source ensemble (MC distribution)– Follows ISM gas profile

Secondary electrons

21

pp !�⇡0,⇡+,⇡�

@ne

@t= r · [D(E,x)rne] +

@

@E[b(E, r)ne]�r · [vne] +Qe(E,x)� Se(E,x)

• Injection by the pp attenuation process

⇡+ ! e+ + ⌫e + ⌫̄µ + ⌫µ

⇡� ! e� + ⌫̄e + ⌫µ + ⌫̄µ

• Transport equation (electrons)

– Negligible advection– No absorption– Diffusion coefficient same as for protons (depends on charge)

Cosmic ray distribution in ‘stationary’ ISM

22

10�1 100 101 102

r/kpc

10�27

10�26

10�25

10�24

10�23

10�22

10�21

E·d

NdE

dV/e

rg·c

m�

3 eV

�1

• Electrons calculated for each proton injection diffusion profile (MC distribution)

• Then convolved across proton source distribution (i.e. the SN events)

The advection zone (outflows)

23M82 in H⍺ (WIYN) and optical (HST)

Smith+ 2005

@n

@t= r · [D(E,x)rn] +

@

@E[b(E, r)n]�r · [vn] +Q(E,x)� S(E,x)

2 4 6 8 10

h/kpc

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

v/km

·s�

1

Outflow velocity, vCircular velocity, Vc

The advection zone (outflows)Hydrodynamical outflow model

24Owen+ 2019a; Samui+ 2010

The advection zone (outflows)Particle propagation

25

• Steady state solutions to transport equation, i.e. @n@t

= 0

100 101 102 103 104 105 106

E/GeV

10�22

10�18

10�14

10�10

10�6

10�2

102

d�

dE

d⌦

/G

eV�

1cm

�2

s�1

sr�

1

Ep/GeV

50 kpc

Owen+ 2019a

Energy deposition and heating

Image credit: National Bunsen Burner Day (March 31st), McGill University 2016

Heating mechanisms & global impacts

27

• Direct Coulomb (DC)

“quenching”Also operates in magnetized CGM via CR streaming instability + Alfvén wave dissipation (similar rate)

• Indirect Inverse Compton X-rays (IX)

“strangulation”Also advected CRs may also slow inflows, or heat filaments in CGM by DC, Alfvén dissipation… Figure based on Tumlinson+ 2017

Direct Coulomb heatingZone comparisons

Adapted from Owen+ 2019a (1901.01411) 28

10�1 100 101

h/kpc

10�44

10�41

10�38

10�35

10�32

10�29

10�26

dE

dV

dtd⌦/e

rg·c

m�

3s�

1sr

�1

Zone A

Zone B Zone B

Outflow schematic

Extended injection region

CRs (extended injection)Advection Zone A

CRs(Thermal) X-raysStellar radiationFree-streaming CRs

Diffusion Zone B

Indirect heatingISM reference case

10�1 100 101 102

r/kpc

10�41

10�38

10�35

10�32

10�29

10�26

dE

dV

dt/

erg

·cm

�3

s�1

Nowz = 0; t = 13.7 Gyr

z = 12; t = 370 Myr

Owen+ 2019b (1905.00338) 29

CGM minimum shown here: value in inflow filaments would be higher (proportional to density)

CGM structure and implications

Cold inflowing filaments

Protogalaxy Interstellar

mediumH II region

Circum-galactic medium

AB

H II region

Owen+ 2019b (1905.00338)

Strangulation vs. quenching

30

10�1 100 101 102

r/kpc

10�41

10�38

10�35

10�32

10�29

10�26

dE

dV

dt/

erg

·cm

�3

s�1

Nowz = 0; t = 13.7 Gyr

z = 12; t = 370 Myr

• Scaling relation to deal with filaments• Effective heating power ~1-2 orders of

magnitude lower than ISM value

Timescales

31

⌧Q = ⌧mag + ⌧DC

⌧S = ⌧mag + ⌧IX

Time for ISM to exceeddue to DC heating

Tvir

Time for filament region to exceeddue to IX heating

Tvir

Magnetic containment time; required for CR effects to develop

⌧mag / SFR�1

• Estimate by considering condition for them to no longer be gravitationally bound –upper-limit

Application to real galaxies…

Feedback and star-formation

Image credit: HST image of N90 Star forming region in SMC, NASA/ESA 2007

Inferred behavior of MACS1149-JD1

HST and ALMA image of MACS1149-JD1 (z=9.11) – NASA/ESA, Hashimoto+ 2018

• Spectroscopic z=9.11 (t = 550 Myr)

• Two populations of stars– One from observed SF activity– Other from activity ~100 Myr earlier

• Earlier burst of Star-formation at z=15.4; t=260 Myr (Hashimoto+2018)

• Quenched fairly quickly– distinct inferred age of older stellar

population – SED, size of Balmer break

RSF ⇡ 4.2+0.8�1.1 M� yr�1

33

Can CRs account for the rapid 100 Myr quenching after initial burst?

Can CRs do the job?

200 300 400 500 600

t/Myr

1

3

10

30

100

300

RSF

/M�

yr�

1

⌧dyn

10�10

10�8

10�6

10�4

10�2

100

hBi/

G

• Hashimoto+ 2018 star-formation burst models (intense, medium, slow).• Schober+ 2013 magnetic field growth, traces cosmic ray containment.

• Consistent with CR strangulation + quenching working together.– Radiative heating timescales not consistent with rapid ‘quenching’

Owen+ 2019a (1901.01411) 34

Why not other mechanisms?

35

Owen+ 2019b (1905.00338)

• Dependence on only intrinsic (internal) parameters – Internal feedback not external trigger

2 4 6 8 10 12

M⇤ / 109 M�

100

200

300

400

500

t qui/

Myr

MACS1149-JD1

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

rgal /kpc

100

200

300

400

500

t qui/

Myr

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

⌧dyn /Myr

100

200

300

400

500

t qui/

Myr

Intrinsic parameters

No clear correlation

• 11 more systems selected from literature, post-SB with relatively high stellar mass, but low SFR (plus availability of measured quantities…)

– Indicative of being in a quiescent stage of their evolution

Why not other mechanisms?

36

Owen+ 2019b (1905.00338)

2 4 6 8 10 12

M⇤ / 109 M�

100

200

300

400

500

t qui/

Myr

MACS1149-JD1

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

rgal /kpc

100

200

300

400

500

t qui/

Myr

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

⌧dyn /Myr

100

200

300

400

500

t qui/

Myr

Extrinsic parameters

No clear correlation100 200 300 400 500

⌧Q / Myr

100

200

300

400

500

t qui/

Myr

100 200 300 400 500

⌧s / Myr

100

200

300

400

500

t qui/

Myr

Negative correlation

• Clear trend, not predominantly sudden/stochastic (i.e. mechanical hypernovae, etc)

– Progressive heating (e.g. by CRs) consistent here too

Summary and outlook• Cosmic rays are presumably abundant in high redshift starbursts• Can deposit energy into ISM and multi-component CGM with

implications for star-formation quenching/strangulation• Able to account for the “bursty” star-formation histories in high-z

starburst/post-starbursts• Next steps: sub-galactic and super-galactic scales

– Detail of internal feedback in molecular clouds/observable signatures– Impacts on CGM and flows of matter/energy– Impacts on external environment (e.g. cosmic reionisation, gamma-ray background)

• Selected publications: – Owen+ 2018 MNRAS 481 666 (arXiv:1808.07837)– Owen+ 2019a MNRAS 484 1645 (arXiv:1901.01411)– Owen+ 2019b A&A 626 A85 (arXiv:1905.00338)

37